“Gothic writing warns of the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations”. How far does your reading of gothic writing support this view?

Throughout gothic writing, there are many protagonists who are presented as extremely ambitious; they are characters who aspire beyond the limitations imposed upon them by society and religion. Often, they appear to succeed. They appear to achieve their aims, which could interpreted as an encouragement of such behaviour. However, by the end of each text, it becomes clear that success does not follow their aspirations. In many cases, they are punished for revolting against their restraints, which would lead to the interpretation that gothic writing warns against the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations.

   In The Pardoner’s Tale, the eponymous protagonist is presented as aspiring beyond his limitations within the Church system so that he can satiate his extreme greed. Throughout the entire tale, he portrays himself and his role as more important than it actually is: “myn heigh power”; “suffisant pardoner”. He even tells his audience that it is an “honour” to have him there, which connotes how he has elevated his sense of self-worth and importance within the Church. The Pardoner in this text aspires beyond the limitations imposed by the role, as he arrogantly believes he has the “auctoritee” to absolve people of their sins for his own “covetise”. Initially, it appears Chaucer is warning against the Pardoner’s ambitious nature, and highlighting the dangers of what he does to break his limitations. At the end of poem, the Host challenges the Pardoner’s hypocrisy and even threatens to “kutte of” parts of his body. This attack causes the Pardoner to lose his voice- “answerde nat a word”; “no word ne wolde he seye”- which is arguably the most powerful tool he has in the manipulation of his audience. For him to lose his voice, which he has been using to extort money from the “lewed” audience, could be considered a loss of his absolute power, and even a punishment for his actions. Thus, it could be interpreted that Chaucer is warning against the dangers of aspiring beyond your limitations, for it appears that the Pardoner receives his comeuppance for his aspirations.

   However, a much greater interpretation connotes that the Pardoner is not punished at all. Due to the Knight’s intervention, the Host stops challenging the Pardoner. They “kiste” and ignored what just happened, presumably carrying on as normal as they “riden forth hir weye” towards Canterbury. The Pardoner’s extreme “avarice”, and desire to satiate his “covetise”, appears to have gone unpunished. The only person to challenge him, and bring him some form of retribution, is silenced by the Knight. Thus, it could be argued that Chaucer is not warning of the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations- the Pardoner lives on without any penalties, despite doing so. Rather, it appears that Chaucer may actually be reflecting a deteriorating and fallen world. He appears to be satirically highlighting the corruption of the Catholic Church: an inverted religious institution where a desire to “winne” is more important than the “correccion of sinne”, as well as one where no one is willing to challenge the corruption that is so prevalent in society.

  Lady Macbeth is presented as having greater ambitions than the Pardoner when she aspires beyond the societal limitations of a woman in the Jacobean era. She seeks to defy the authority of God as she attempts to change everything which makes her human: “stop up… access to remorse”; “fill me… of direst cruelty”. This is a character who appears unable to accept her humanity, rejecting it in favour of "gall" and evil. Rather than abide by God’s authority and accept who she is, she aspires beyond that. She wants to connect with the “murdering ministers” and lose any human emotion which may affect the ruthless pragmatism she uses to plot Duncan’s murder. Initially, she appears to succeed in doing so, which would allow one to argue that Shakespeare is encouraging her ambitious nature. Before the act of regicide, she is able to use her powerful influence to control Macbeth. Once he was “strong against the deed”, but after being manipulated by his wife, it is clear he has become “settled” on murdering him. Her aspirations appear to have been rewarded in this scene. Aspiring to completely reject her humanity, which is best exemplified when she reveals she would “dashed the brains out” of her own child, has allowed her to be pragmatic and manipulate her husband. She has been rewarded with success and power over her husband, which infers that this text is encouraging a desire to break limitations.

  However, a much greater reading suggests that Shakespeare is not praising her ambitions; rather, he appears to be highlighting the dangers of them. At the end of the play, she is presented as succumbing to a guilt that is destroying her. Her sanity appears to be decaying as she begins sleepwalking, which suggests that she is lacking inner peace and rest. She realises “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten my little hand” or wash away her guilt. Whereas before she believed “a little water clears us of this deed”, her strong character has broken down so that she keeps re-living the “so much blood” from Duncan’s murder. It could be argued that this guilt is a form of punishment for her earlier acts of transgression. Thus, it appears that Shakespeare is warning of the dangers of her aspirations. Whilst she initially appears to be rewarded with the success of being able to overpower Macbeth, it is clear that her aspirations are punished with guilt later in the play.

  Frankenstein, the titular protagonist from Shelley’s novel, is presented as having the greatest desire to pass beyond his limitations. His ambitions are much grander than those of Lady Macbeth and The Pardoner. During the creation of his Creature, he imagines a future where a “new species will bless me as its creator”, when he is the “source” of a new type of life. The use of biblical terms such as “creator” and “source” suggest that Frankenstein is a character aspiring to reach a God-like status, and gain the absolute power associated with that. This extremely ambitious character seeks to break the “ideal bounds” of life and death and discover the “secrets of life”. This arcane knowledge would have been considered by an 1800s reader as only belonging to God. Frankenstein’s aspirations to discover it may have been considered an arrogant usurpation of God’s role, and certainly reaching beyond his limits. Furthermore, he desires to create this being because the “wisest men” from history were unable to do it. Not only does he aspire to a God-like status, he also seeks to become the best of humanity. This extreme ambition appears to be followed by success, which leads to the interpretation that this novel does not warn against the dangers of aspiring beyond your limitations. He creates the Creature, succeeding in his goals. His ambitious “endeavours” have led to the greatest scientific discovery imaginable, and his “ardent” curiosity is satiated as he finally discovers nature’s “secrets”. Thus, it could be argued this gothic novel is encouraging Frankenstein’s aspirations, for he appears to have been rewarded with the success of a God-like status.

  However, a much greater reading would suggest that Frankenstein does not reach this God-like status at all. In what is a complete reversal of the relationship between God and Satan in Paradise Lost, where the creator (God) has power over his creation, Frankenstein is presented as controlled by his own creation. The Creature later labels Frankenstein as a “slave”, and himself the “master”. Despite being Frankenstein’s ‘child’, it is clear the dynamics of this relationship have been inverted so that it is the Creature who “have power” over his maker  The absolute power in this relationship lies with the Creature, and Frankenstein has no choice but to “obey” his demands. Moreover, the Creature’s murderous rampage, which leaves characters such as William and Elizabeth dead, causes much “anguish” for Frankenstein- and Frankenstein is powerless to stop it. It appears that Frankenstein’s ambitions only lead to “slavery” and "anguish", not to the God-like status he sought after. Thus, it could be interpreted that Shelley is warning against aspiring beyond our limitations, for it brings nothing but death and misery to this transgressive protagonist.

   Some gothic protagonists, namely the Pardoner, do escape punishment and retribution for aspiring beyond his limitations, which suggests that gothic writing does not warn against the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations. However, it is clear that the ambitious characters of these texts are presented as more punished, facing greater retribution for their actions than they do rewards. Their aspirations often lead to mental torment and pain, not success. If these characters face such serious consequences for aspiring beyond their limitations, it can thus be argued that Gothic writing warns against the dangers of such behaviour. With the exception of the Pardoner, ambition is rarely encouraged as it does not lead to rewards or success in gothic writing. 

How far do you agree that Lady Macbeth is presented as a "fiend-like" queen?

Shakespeare’s presentation of Lady Macbeth is a very complex one which changes throughout the play. There are many wicked aspects of her character which highlight her fiendish nature. She is capable of great duplicity as she hides her callous behaviour from those around her. Earlier in the play, she is presented as rejective of her humanity and continues to have a lack of remorse for her actions throughout the play. However, there are many redeeming qualities to her character which suggest she is not entirely demonic. Her deceptive nature is not sustained throughout the play, and she does express many human qualities- rather than fiendish ones- such as her compassion, guilt and a supportive disposition towards her husband.

   Earlier in the play, Lady Macbeth is presented as an indifferent, uncaring character with qualities of a “fiend-like” queen. When Macbeth murders King Duncan, she does not comfort her horrified husband who can no longer look at his hands. Rather, she insults his manhood: “infirm of purpose” and describes him as “white” hearted and cowardly. This is a character who appears not to care about the consequences of her actions, and mocks Macbeth for feeling any regret at all. There is a strong sense of apathy about her character as she chooses to focus on framing the servants instead of expressing remorse: “go”, “get”, “carry”. The chain of imperatives in her language highlight her almost mechanical lack of regret as she works to destroy any evidence of their involvement. A Jacobean audience would be particularly shocked at this presentation because regicide was considered the most blasphemous, horrific act to commit. To remain indifferent to this treacherous crime would be considered a very fiendish quality. However, a contrasting interpretation suggests that Lady Macbeth does express a non-fiendish, sensitive side. During the same scene as Duncan’s murder, she reveals had Duncan “not resembled my father… I had done’t”. This suggests that she does possess a moral side to her character which prevents her from killing someone similar to her father. Furthermore, there is a suggestion that to frame the two servants, she needed alcohol to “make me bold”. This is not something an innately fiendish or cruel person would need to do. Therefore, it is more plausible that the callous side to Lady Macbeth we are presented with in this scene - “a little water clears us of” guilt-  is a façade. A façade she uses to cover up the immense distress she feels, and one that may be a result of ruthless pragmatism, rather than wickedness.

  Lady Macbeth is later presented as more devilish when she rejects her humanity and femininity. This is an unnatural desire which connects her with the “murdering ministers” and isolates her from God: “tend on mortal thoughts”; “unsex me”; “take my milk for gall”. She appears to shun human nature itself in order to commit this crime. Religion was a very prevalent part of Jacobean society. To have utter disregard for God’s will was considered sacrilegious, and a fiendish desire. No longer does wish she wish to be human: “fill me… of direst cruelty”. The superlative “direst” connoting an extreme level of detachment from humanity and God. However, a much stronger interpretation suggests that Lady Macbeth does this sacrificially in order to help her husband achieve kingship. The character is presented as wishful and ambitious for her husband’s benefit: she wants him to be “crowned withall!” and fears that he is “too full of the milk of human kindness” to do so. She states that he should “leave all the rest to me” which suggests she is willing to do everything necessary to help her husband. This is a very loving characteristic. Perhaps she is willing to lose her humanity in order to help Macbeth with his rise to the throne. Whilst she does appear to act diabolically by rejecting her humanity, it is clear that Lady Macbeth’s motives for doing so are very human, and not “fiend-like” in nature.

   Lady Macbeth is presented as most “fiend-like” when Shakespeare establishes a duplicity about her character. When in the courtyard of her castle, she is described as “our honoured hostess!” with “fair and noble” qualities by King Duncan. She effectively portrays herself as a an “innocent flower”. This is juxtaposed with the infamous “unsex me” scene when she is presented as a very wicked character who is out of sync with the sacredness of life. In that scene, she would have “dashed the brains out” of her own child and ominously states that Duncan “never shall sun that morrow see!” Through the juxtaposition of the “sweet” and “serpent” like qualities of Lady Macbeth, Shakespeare suggests this is a fiendish character capable of great deceit: “beguile the time, look like the time”. However, a much greater interpretation suggests that this duplicity is not enduring- it dissipates as the play progresses. Later in the play, her guilt over killing Duncan is presented as uncontrollable and impossible to conceal She begins to walk and confess her sins during her sleep: she “write upon’t” a piece of paper, and exclaims that “the old man… had so much blood”. She appears unable to control her abhorrence for her actions: “out, damned spot! Out!” Lady Macbeth is no longer a character who can plot regicide, and then be a “noble” hostess to that very king. This fiendish duplicity is absent from her character later, and suggests that Lady Macbeth is not completely demonic in nature.

  Lady Macbeth is often a character who behaves in a “fiend-like” manner. She callously plots regicide, expresses no regret over Duncan’s murder, rejects her own humanity and is presented as a very deceptive character. All of these are the qualities of a wicked demonic character. However, a much deeper reading shows that there are often very human motives for these actions. Perhaps her lack of remorse over Duncan’s murder is a method of coping with the distress, or the rejection of her humanity was to help her husband achieve kingship. It is clear that Lady Macbeth is a character capable of both wicked and human qualities, but for Malcolm to describe her as an entirely “fiend-like queen” is not apt description for this complex character.

Macbeth (2015) Review

Kurzel’s adaptation of Macbeth is a skilful film that utilises many techniques to answer the key questions raised within the source material. Who is at fault for Macbeth’s violent crimes? How much sympathy can we as an audience truly feel for this flawed protagonist? The answers to these questions appear to be the impetus of this well-made adaptation. Film techniques such as the use of colour saturation, slow-motion and the restructuring of the plot all serve to alter our ability to show compassion for the protagonist as he begins to “stepped so far” into a world of death and brutality.

The use of slow-motion during the opening proves very effective at developing the gothic themes of the source material. From the eager shaking of Macbeth’s sword as he waits for the battle to begin, through to its climactic conclusion, Kurzel chooses to reduce the film’s pace significantly. As a result, every single detail of this bloody battle can be savoured by the audience. Every brutal attack that Macbeth and Banquo execute upon their enemies can almost be felt, as the scenes play out slow enough for us to become more involved with every stab, kick and slice. Kurzel appears to be using this slow-motion technique to glorify and stylise the violence, which may reflect the characterisation of Duncan and his lords within the play itself. Both Macbeth and Banquo are praised as “worthy gentleman!” for their savage fighting style; they are “honoured” and “valiant”. Duncan’s speech is filled with a chain of positive adjectives to emphasise how respected Macbeth is for his actions- “brave Macbeth, well he deserves that name”. This attitude to the protagonist’s heroic efforts is reflected by the use of slow-motion, which presents their patriotic desire to protect their country as impressive, magnificent and extravagant. However, a more effective use of this slow-motion is how it infers the powerful influence of the Witches in this play. In a short segment of the battle sequence, the pace returns to real-time for the soldiers who continue to participate in the combat. This is juxtaposed with the shots featuring the eponymous protagonist and the Witches, who remain in slow-motion. For the audience, this effectively emphasises the influence they have upon Macbeth. Only he can see them, and his focus is on these arcane figures rather than the bloody battle as it continues around him. Kurzel’s use of slow-motion thus serves to isolate Macbeth as a protagonist who is no longer of the temporal world. From this moment on, Macbeth appears to be under the supernatural influence of the Witches.

However, Kurzel appears to spend the rest of the film disputing the assertion that Macbeth is under the influence of overwhelming supernatural forces. In the play, the Witches are otherworldly beings with the sole goal of “draw him [Macbeth] onto his confusion”. The plot is slightly altered in this adaption so that Lady Macbeth sees these mysterious characters. Whilst it may appear to be a small adjustment, this heavily influences the audience’s response to the question at the heart of this play: ‘who is to blame for Macbeth’s actions?’ In the play, it is ambiguous and unclear. This adaptation makes the mistake of eliminating the uncertainty that makes the play the timeless classic that it is. For Lady Macbeth to meet the Witches, Kurzel inadvertently diminishes the integrity of their mysterious representation as paranormal beings. In fact, there is very little makeup or effects (if any) used on these characters, which serves to present them as more human than “juggling fiend”. Rather than “vanish” completely after their meeting with Macbeth, they simply walk off into the fog. Kurzel appears to be creating a very realistic and grounded version of this classic gothic play. Furthermore, the famous dagger scene is adapted so that it is a young boy in a dream who offers the weapon to Macbeth. In the play, the origins of this dagger are much more obscure. We never truly know whether it is Macbeth’s “heat-oppressed” mind that hallucinates this image, or the Witches tempting him down a road of violence and death. Kurzel’s adaption does not preserve this mystery: the Witches are much less supernatural and arcane in this film, as the ambiguity which made them so interesting in the play is stripped away. This also makes it very difficult to blame Macbeth’s transgressive murders throughout the play on the overpowering influence on the Witches. Whilst the use of slow-motion earlier did appear to suggest that Macbeth was completely enchanted by their power, it is clear that the true fault for Macbeth’s actions lies with the protagonist himself.

In fact, Kurzel and Fassbender’s presentation of Macbeth appears to deliberately restrict our sympathies for the protagonist. During the film, the domination and command of Lady Macbeth is almost entirely omitted. Cotillard’s performance is very subtle as her character seduces Macbeth into committing regicide, rather than completely overpowering him. When Macbeth cowardly asks “if we should fail,-” in the film, it appears to stem from a fear of disappointing his wife for not being masculine enough. In the play, it is Lady Macbeth who uses his manhood and his pride as weapons in order to convince Macbeth. The film does not utilise this key concept within the play, for the delivery of Cotillard’s lines are too quiet for us to interpret her as the commanding partner of this relationship. In fact, much of the dialogue in the play has been cut from the film’s screenplay. Following Duncan’s murder, the use of imperatives and insults in her language- such as “infirm of purpose”; “white” hearted and “go get”- is absent from Kurzel’s adaptation. Similarly to the Witches’ presentation, her influence has been stripped to its core so that there is very little of it. This serves to increase the blame of Macbeth’s actions upon the titular protagonist himself.

Furthermore, Kurzel presents Macbeth as worthy of the titles “butcher” and “devilish Macbeth” during the act of regicide itself. In Shakespeare’s source narrative, the murder is completely omitted. It takes place off-stage, which may initially infer that Macbeth feels so much guilt for his crime that he cannot process it. He runs and hides immediately, refusing to go back to the “sorry sight”. However, a much greater interpretation would suggest that this crime is actually more abhorrent for the audience, hence why it is absent from the narrative. There is a suggestion that the crime is too horrific to be imagined. Kurzel appears to be adapting the play so that it coincides with the latter interpretation. He chooses to include Duncan’s murder within the film, and directs it in a perfectly chilling way. In what is one of the most accomplished scenes in the film, the audience is left repulsed by the violent, barbaric and bloody murder that Macbeth commits. It is the repeated stabbings, and the uncontrollable burst of ferocity, that presents Macbeth as so cold, and so indifferent. Thus, it could be interpreted that Kurzel is deliberately restricting our sympathies for the protagonist. Whereas the play included a duality about his character, which made him both sympathetic and morally revolting, the film does not portray Macbeth as someone we should feel sorry for. Even the film’s colour saturation, so that the scene appears orange and red during the final battle sequence, serves to distance us from Macbeth. We struggle to feel sympathy for the character because the colour saturation obscures him from view; all we can see is the ‘red’ that symbolises his bloody and violent path to power.

Whilst this film is flawed in its lack of ambiguity or mystery, there are many elements of the source material that Kurzel translates to screen faultlessly. He masterly reflects the glorification of violence in the play through stylised and stunning visual storytelling, and he cleverly restructures the story to open up original interpretations on how we as an audience should respond to Macbeth’s character. It is an impressive film that proves to be a faithful adaptation of this 400 year old play, whilst also having its own fresh, innovative and modern flair.